In the 1930's Adolf Hitler banned all lawyers from serving in the German Government. His reasoning was that those with a vested interest in law should not be making it.
Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

In the 1930's Adolf Hitler banned all lawyers from serving in the German Government. His reasoning was that those with a vested interest in law should not be making it.
Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

Click to expand...

It may have had more to do with the fact that the cream of German jurists at that time were either Jewish or liberally minded, bar the odd, opportunist, exception. It was also aided by the division amongst the legal establishment over whether or not to support the Weimar Constitution. Too many pre-war German lawyers yearned for the Kaiserrecht: rule of law within the framework of an unelected Monarchy, with the symbolic, father figure of the Kaiser. Too many misguided lawyers falsely believed that the Nazis offered a return to this system, what might be called FÃ¼hrerrecht! Lawyers represented order as against arbitrary chaos: the rule of law (Kaiser-/Staat-Recht) over the illegal whims of the powerful or influential. Krystallnacht was emblematic of the complete destruction of the German legal system throughout the 1930s, replaced by an arbitrary system where the Courts enforced make-believe rules which constituted counterfeit law. In this sense, nazi law, a contradiction in terms, negated any legal system or process.

For all its faults, democratic government, even one where 11% of MPs are lawyers, is preferable to a nation ruled through the fiat of an elite or a charismatic leader.

For all its faults, democratic government, even one where 11% of MPs are lawyers, is preferable to a nation ruled through the fiat of an elite or a charismatic leader.

Click to expand...

Steve, the way I see it we are as close to a dictatorship as we have been since the death of Oliver Cromwell. B'lier and his cronies have ruled this country as if they have a divine right, with the most obvious area being Europe, where promises that nothing would be given away without significant returns for the UK, or referendums would be held on this or that subject only for the chance to be withdrawn when it became obvious that they would go against the wishes of the nu labour elite.

Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

Click to expand...

What? Do you mean that there could possibly be a link between Bliar signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights and his wife being a prominent human rights lawyer who stood to make millions from it? Well I never! :wtf:

Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

Click to expand...

What? Do you mean that there could possibly be a link between Bliar signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights and his wife being a prominent human rights lawyer who stood to make millions from it? Well I never! :wtf:

Jeffb loving your avatar, this country is run by a self serving click of lawyers. I agree that we are close (if not sleep walking) towards a dictatorship, I could have a right old rant about this but it's not the forum too.........

I think what is now clear that he must have an information system as good as Edgar Hoover to blackmail so many MPs into being 'good boys' during his leadership. The question is will he give the file to Gordon or will chaos return to the party for the dying years of this government.

In the 1930's Adolf Hitler banned all lawyers from serving in the German Government. His reasoning was that those with a vested interest in law should not be making it.
Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

Click to expand...

? Adolf Hitler banned all lawyers from serving in the German Government? Er, Hans Frank anyone. Or the bloke who drafted the Nuremberg Race laws. Half the people at the infamous Wannsee Conference were lawyers. So no, Hitler most definitely did not ban lawyers from his government...

In the 1930's Adolf Hitler banned all lawyers from serving in the German Government. His reasoning was that those with a vested interest in law should not be making it.
Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

Click to expand...

? Adolf Hitler banned all lawyers from serving in the German Government? Er, Hans Frank anyone. Or the bloke who drafted the Nuremberg Race laws. Half the people at the infamous Wannsee Conference were lawyers. So no, Hitler most definitely did not ban lawyers from his government...

Click to expand...

Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. Not civil servants (Staatsbeamte) Lawyers were employed there --but Members of Parliament (Parlamentsmitglieder)
Lawyers were not permitted to offer themselves for election. None were elected.

similar to a another reponse I post today but, I have no problem with lawyers. HOWEVER!!! I strongly believe that the lawyers/law firms should be held financially liable if the case is proved to be false, or the verdict is returned as anything other than guilty. This would prevent lawyer from taking cases that are obliviously a waste of time, thus preventing us the taxpayers footing the bill.

Of course the Armed Forces is not governed by members of the Armed Forces, considered to be a conflict of interest maybe? So why should lawyers be any different. Remembering of course that a serving member of the Armed Forces may not stand for election.

BlLiar is nothing but a traitor, who has destroyed our way of life & our culture.

UKIPS's take on his recent trip to visit Mrs Kraut

As the end of Tony Blair's ten year reign as prime minister draws to a close there is one last significant act that he will perform. On Friday, June 22nd in Brussels there is the concluding Euro summit of Angela Merkel's presidency of the EU. Mr. Blair will sign up to a new draft European Treaty and then, within days, leave office.

For a prime minister who has been very powerful the one area of policy in which his will has never prevailed is that of our relations with the EU. If there is one thing that Mr. Blair really believes in it is the European Union, I saw this at first hand during his EU presidency in 2005. Yet he failed to take us into the Euro and cannot ratify the EU constitution because pressure, of which UKIP were part, forced him into offering a referendum. As he knew he would lose both of these, we were never asked and we still have our currency.

Despite these previous failures he took over the EU presidency in July 2005, brimful with optimism. He was going to save 'Europe' and modernise it. But many will remember that it ended in humiliation with a surrender of our rebate and a crowing President Chirac. At the last meeting I said to Blair that Chirac had 'outclassed him and outplayed him at every turn'. He went crimson, waved his arms around and shouted at me. This time he will want a 'success' and will want to leave office being seen a 'good European'.

But what of the content of this new Treaty? It is truly remarkable that, with just days to go, no one has seen any of the plans and there is no informed debate. All negotiations are in secret and the UK Parliament will have no opportunity to discuss content. This is being done because the last time there was public debate the French and Dutch voted NO! It is also extraordinary that our Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, appears to hardly be involved at all. It is as if a retiring dictator intents to leave an indelible print on our future. Our views do not matter.

What we do know is that there will be agreement on a full time President of the EU Council. It will be someone with real power. Mr. Blair himself will be a prime candidate for this role, especially if he shows at the summit how compliant he is. There will also be a greatly enhanced role for Javier Solana as an EU Foreign Minister and yet more of what is left of our self-government will be transferred. Quite how much of our veto rights over Justice and Home Affairs will be relinquished we will find out on the day. In essence this EU Treaty will contain the provisions of the failed constitution but drop the C-word itself. It is all an exercise in deceit and, even by EU standards, contemptuous of democracy. This must be fought and UKIP will!

The UKIP MEPs and press officers will be at the summit in force and we have prepared a visual demonstration that explains our feelings on this process. Already we are contacting all of the media, both nationally and locally, so that we can present the real voice of opposition. Mr. Cameron may talk about a referendum, but we do not know which way he would vote! We will continue to press for a referendum on this Treaty, though we will not forget there are bigger issues at stake.

Even without this Treaty 75% of our laws are now made in Brussels and the whole process of EU integration moves forward every day. The referendum UKIP really want is a full, free and fair vote on whether we stay in a political union or regain our independence and pride. The EU question has been off the agenda for some time. Mr. Blair is about to change that. One day we may even thank him for that.

Westminster is inundated with lawyers with a vested interest in law, making it. Dear Tony, a classic example.

Click to expand...

What? Do you mean that there could possibly be a link between Bliar signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights and his wife being a prominent human rights lawyer who stood to make millions from it? Well I never! :wtf:

Click to expand...

I think you are wrong. The ECHR came out of the carnage that was WW2. Think not just the fighting, but what it did to civilians fom Krystalnacht through to the rape of the majority of the Prussian woman as the Russians came through what was East Germany. The legislators were determined that it should never happen again. The total war that was WW2 did not affect our civilians I think so much as the mainland Europeans and as a consequence the French and the Germans as more Eurocentric than we are. Although diverting a mo, I believe that collective feeling is passing given the fact that the French voted no for the constitution.

Returning to the debate, it must have seemed odd to our European neighbours that a nation so advanced and civilised as the UK had not brought the ECHR into UK law. I believe that when the HRA was drafted it was not meant to cover silly rules like prisoners smoking in their cells (not you Blobs but real prisoners) but systemic abuse and discrimination similar to that which marked the 1930s in Germany and indeed much of the ethnic hatred which is still going on in Kosovo.